4.6 Article

Aggregate morphology evolution by sintering: Number and diameter of primary particles

期刊

JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 7-19

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2011.11.005

关键词

Aggregate; Grain boundary diffusion; Fractal dimension; Mass-mobility exponent; Primary particle size

资金

  1. ETH [(ETHIIRA) ETH-11 09-1]
  2. European Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structure of fractal-like agglomerates (physically bonded) and aggregates (chemically or sinter-bonded) is important in aerosol synthesis of nanoparticles, and in monitoring combustion emissions and atmospheric particles. It also influences particle mobility, scattering and eventually performance of nanocomposites, suspensions and devices made with such particles. Here, aggregate sintering by viscous flow of amorphous materials (silica, polymers) and grain boundary diffusion of crystalline ceramics (titania, alumina) or metals (Ni, Fe, Ag, etc.) is investigated. A scaling law is found between average aggregate projected area and equivalent number of constituent primary particles during sintering: from fractal-like agglomerates to aggregates and eventually compact particles (e.g. spheres). This is essentially a relation independent of time, material properties and sintering mechanisms. It is used to estimate the equivalent primary particle diameter and number in aggregates. The evolution of aggregate morphology or structure is quantified by the effective fractal dimension (D-f) and mass-mobility exponent (D-fm,) and the corresponding prefactors. The D-fm increases monotonically during sintering converging to 3 for a compact particle. Therefore D-fm and its prefactor could be used to gage the degree or extent of sintering of agglomerates made by a known collision mechanism. This analysis is exemplified by comparison to experiments of silver nanoparticle aggregates sintered at different temperatures in an electric tube furnace. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据